Your nieve enough to think that a billion dollar+ enterprise wouldnt employ shills on the biggest internet poker forum to protect their business? Really?

Don't misrepresent my remarks. Most sites have representatives here on 2+2 openly, some of them clearly identified as posting on behalf of the sites. It's also possible there are guerilla posters sanctioned by a site but I doubt it. My point was that there is virtually no chance that any of them have secret shills posting in the rigtard threads. Some of the most vocal critics of the rigtards have posted information or links at some point that show their real identity, and they aren't site employees. Also, being an effective site defender would not involve mocking and berating rigged posts for fun.

Actually thats exactly what shilling involves. They hope to deflect away from the topic using insults and nonsense so that the thread degenerates into an argument or attack on the OP and people agreeing with the OP, in particular shills look for grammer/spelling mistakes and then insult a poster calling them dumb/retatrded/rigtard for example.

Again you willfully misrepresent the situation.

These people who spend time answering 'rigged' posts, Markusg, qpw, Rek, etc have all posted many thoughtful and considered posts answering the concerns of people such as yourself, Steven Mears and tk1133 (if you are actually different people). Unlike normal posters who may come here with legitimate questions your response if to ignore the information you have been given and make silly comments about shilling.

As far as you are concerned the sole qualification for being a shill is that a poster maintains that there is no evidence for rigging and points out that it for you to provide such evidence if you want your allegations taken seriously.

Do not imagine for one moment that those of us who do not engage with you are not fully aware of the complete vacuousness of your 'case'. Just because we don't join in the name calling should NOT be taken as a sign that we believe you are anything other than the things Mark, qpw and others suggest you are.

look, these threads always go the same way - someone, genuinely or not, asks if online poker is rigged. then several folks give the standard replies - no proof over millions of hands, no good reason to do such a thing, most who think that and spend time learning to play realize it was their own inexperience that caused them to lose, more hands per hour, etc -and either the original rigtard blows off that reasoning, or another Flag-Bearing Rigtard like you or tk joins the fray and calls everyone shills and then claims that folks who don't share their conspiracy-based beliefs are insulting them in an effort to derail the "discussion."

I once showed a perfect example of that process:

That's essentially what you're doing. Taking the victim's role because someone had the nerve to point out that you're just plain wrong.

I will admit though, after telling rigtards the same thing (politely, I add) several times and seeing that they just want to argue, I'm quite happy to pile on the insults because of my own personality flaws. I do like picking on dumb people. It's fun and easy. What can I say? I'm not a saint.

But let's go over a couple of things here...
If you don't care enough to do those things, it sure seems odd you care enough to continue picking fights with those that don't share your opinion on a game I assume you don't even play anymore, especially when you followed that comment up with this:
Why are you still here then? Your continued, shill-like tenacity defending rigtard beliefs doesn't seem like the actions of someone who gave up.

Ironically, Lee Iacocca did work for Ford.


For decades.

Posted on 27 February 2009

The Argentinian government has angrily criticised Leon Panetta, the new director of the CIA, for warning of a potential economic crisis in the country. The country’s foreign ministry summoned the Online Poker ambassador to Buenos Aires “to explain the lamentable statements” made by Panetta earlier this week, describing them as “unacceptable interference” in its affairs. Panetta told reporters on Wednesday he had been informed that the Online Poker would have to pay more attention to Latin America becaOnline Pokere of “some serioOnline Poker problems … that involve economic instability”. The CIA chief later said the concerns “particularly involved Argentina,…



You can start your search for public information there...I copied and pasted this article, so the typo's are not from me...

Its a ****en joke. Still play because I'm profitable.

CIA using Wikipedia's software
SF Chronicle: U.S. using Wikipedia software for intelligence reports.

The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have created a new computer system that uses software from a popular Internet encyclopedia site to gather input on sensitive topics from analysts across the spy community, part of an effort to fix problems that plagued prewar estimates on Iraq.

The new system, called "Intellipedia" because it is built on open-source software from the Wikipedia Web site, was launched earlier this year. It is already being used to assemble intelligence reports on Nigeria and other subjects, according to U.S. intelligence officials who discussed the initiative in detail for the first time Tuesday



And finally The "root...."

tk - couple of questions for you...

What is a "gimtard?" How did you coin that term and what are its etymological roots?

this is kinda bad, actually. you've got almost 1/2 your chips in on the flop, playing the hand oop. but if he hit his 14-outer (~32% odds) on the river, would you be using this hand as proof of "rigging?" and wtf were you playing online poker just the other day, after spending the last 4 months shouting at the top of your lungs about how shady it is, then to top it off YOU'RE PLAYING ON ULTIMATE BET, one of the very few sites to have been proven beyond a doubt to be involved in dishonest activity?
name please?
are you on his staff?
can you provide evidence that this is true? because if you did, I'd be quite willing to reconsider my stance that there has been no credible proof of non-random deals.
how much more patient do we have to be? I'm not even asking for whatever you have alluded is coming, I just want a time frame.

damn, you saw through my red herring.

it's traditional to post a link to your source, sort of like citing your sources in an essay.
I was going to ask what does this have to do with the issue on hand, but then saw this little teaser...
does this mean the finale is next? I guess I need stephenmeares' pattern-mapping sense 'cause I don't see the connection.

Why would any poker site employ "shills" to repeatedly bump these moronic threads and draw more attention to them when they could just let them die along with the majority of your unused brain cells?

The "shills" aren't going to convince the "rigtards" who will continue to believe it's rigged in the absence of any evidence becuase they are incapable of understanding simple logic and mathematics.

The "rigtards" arent going to convince the "shills" becuase the "rigtards" just rant and ramble and never produce any meaningful data, let alone anything resembling proof.

"Shills" refute the "rigtard" posts because they don't want you giving bad players excuses for their losses that might stop them playing and because it's extremely annoying when stupid people present spurious nonsense as absolute fact.

If you don't want to be treated with contempt, carry out a scientific experiment and present your findings. Is this really that difficult to understand?

I would have believed it to be so if you had not done this reply.

Ironic

that does seem to be the tough part, yes.

So is this it?

The reason for posting this is to see if others notice any variance in the frequency of running KK into AA online versus live. I definitely do.

Playing live for the last couple of years I've only seen KK run into AA only a couple of times at a full table. My friend who plays live much more frequently has also only seen this a handful of times.

However, the majority of sessions I play online will consist of at least one hand where a player runs KK into AA. In fact, this happened twice at my table today within 30 minutes and I saw it at another table I was observing too! I'm not trying to suggest that online poker is rigged, but it does seem very suspicious that this event happens with this sort of high frequency.

I think on average my friend plays about 2 sessions/week, so in two years that's around 200 sessions (2 * 52 * 2). If he's seen this happen around 5 times, that's once out of every 40 sessions. Even if he's seen it happen 10 times, that's once out of every 20 sessions. And if you get dealt 4 times as many hands online, you'd expect to see the same phenomen once every 10 sessions (40 sessions / 4 times as many hands), or once every 5 sessions (20/4). I see it online consistently every 1-2 sessions, so something seems odd with the online versus live frequency of this event.

Anyone care to comment on their experience with this and explain why they think this happens? Thanks.

It's the exact same odds. The only difference is that you will see AA and KK more online because of the increased amount of hands seen per hour.

Look through your hand histories and see if it actually is once ever 1-2 sessions. Memory is a deceiving thing.

I can't even start to imagine how many hours you would need to play live to notice whether you are or aren't running into this the same frequency.

also fwiw I've basically seen AA run into KK or AK every time I've been to Canterbury but Canterbury is definitely rigged.

could it possibly be that live u get 20hands/hr while online u get 1000hands/hr? i think so.

this

look OP is definately messed up. i used to think online was rigged but its more even than live. dealers who dont shuffle up cards right etc.

also recently gone back to playing live and i am seeing way more bad beats than online. has anyone noticed this too. think online software is beginning to move the opposite way. think they want the best hand to hold up more often than it should.

eg, busted someone in a love tourney with only a 2 outer on the river. sick yes but cant remember this happening online in ages

'think online software is beginning to move the opposite way. think they want the best hand to hold up more often than it should.'

Sigh - it isn't rigged in either direction...

I still think a site should offer 'bad beat insurance' as an option. In other words, with the option on you get exactly the correct all in EV $ amount less a 1-2% commission taken by way of extra rake, so you no longer have to care about bad beats.

Maybe it could be on automatically if selected or the option could just pop up in big pots that get all-in...

If you really thought the site was fixed or there were 'too many' bad beats (or if you had just had enough of variance for the day) you could then use this and leave the rest of us in peace..

lololol. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[x]no